GRA wrote:Sure, until (as noted), the numbers get to be large. Anyone on ToU can delay until off-peak now. The issue with QCs kicking on and requiring heavy surges remains a problem, that will require storage, and also (according to the report) likely require considerable upgrading of transformers.

What I wouldn't give to have that problem. We'd need (WAG) at least 25% of the fleet to convert to have this issue. Quite possibly 50% or more. Right now, we only have 1% of new cars that are electric. That translates to about 0.1% of the fleet being electric. It will take a while, and utilities will figure out how to adapt. In the meantime, anyone with a timer can make use of TOU rates.

GRA wrote:Uh huh, and just how long is this need for a bribe to get people to buy a PEV supposed to last, when they are so obviously superior, and what will be the total cost?

Nice sneer in your tone. And good attempt to derail the subject.

Actually directly on point,

So how does a subsidy for purchase change the impact of electric vehicles on global energy systems? Do explain.

GRA wrote: and the major cause of the slow pace in making PEVs mainstream. Of course, if you're a country like China, you can just tell people to sit down, shut up and let the government alone decide how to spend money.

Off topic, but I'll reply. The second part of Tesla's Secret Master Plan worked. The Model S has been and is now, and will likely be produced for a profit, at least until a better and/or cheaper alternatives that can be produced for a profit is in production. The subsidies were not, are not and and will not be a major factor in the purchase of a $135k car. Less than 10% of the price. The loan that prevented Tesla's startup of Model S production near death experience from becoming a corporate death is probably the only government action that might have mattered. And that was paid back years ago.

The other automakers would like to eat lunch in the large luxury sedan market some time soon. So expect similar cars to be produced, and the high end car market to become mostly electric cars. The subsidies don't matter much to this market.

The upscale market is next. There is a huge demand for an electric with reasonable range, better performance than gas and priced $40k to $60k. BMW could have owned this market in electrics, if the i3 wasn't so weird. A larger car with a larger battery and no REX. BMW, Audi, and/or the rest of the usual suspects might still own this market. GM has a potential start with the Bolt, a Buick or Caddy version with RWD or AWD might do very well.

So what is the path to the mainstream? Growth is going to be constrained by production of batteries to around 20% to 30% a year. Price of a electric car will fall as battery production costs continue to fall. Would you expect the limited supply to go first to the low cost cars for the low rent no garage crowd or to the upscale market?

Without subsidies, the above would have been slower, seems like to me at minimum. But why do you seem to assume the reverse?

WetEV wrote:[The utility company charges less for some electrons, and more for others. The electrons that can be delivered when there is excess capacity are a lot cheaper to provide. You want cheaper electrons? Get a EVSE that can be delayed by the utility until the utility has excess capacity. The utility company might even help you buy it, as it will reduce their cost to provide electric power.

This isn't a bribe. Requires no government funds. Not time consuming to do.

Having someone else help you pay for something that you wouldn't buy on your own isn't a bribe? Where is the utility getting the money to pay for this - other ratepayers, by any chance, or perhaps the government will give them a tax break to do so.[/quote]

Or from the reduced costs allowed by the ability to defer demand...

Not every electron has the same cost. The most expensive electrons are at peak hour. By moving demand out of peak hour, the utility doesn't have to spend $1 per kWh to run some aging, inefficient peaking power plant. They can easily scrap that old junk, defer demand until they are delivering $0.03 per kWh from a 70% efficient natural gas combined cycle plant. And charge you a discounted $0.09 per kWh and make more money. By reducing capital costs, the utility can afford to spend a fraction of that reduction on a subsidy for an EVSE they can delay.

GRA wrote:inevitably the need to use OPM will slow the rate of installation.

Eh? Down is up and war is peace in your world?

WetEV#49Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)2014 Leaf SL Red

GRA wrote:The issue with QCs kicking on and requiring heavy surges remains a problem, that will require storage, and also (according to the report) likely require considerable upgrading of transformers.

And remember that this is a small problem. Most charging is L2 over night, and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

I'm in the middle of a 6 or 7 DCQC long weekend. By distance, 160 miles, 120 miles, 80 miles and 40 miles. If I owned a 40kWh LEAF, I might not need any QCs, maybe one for the 160 mile day, with a fair fraction on 60kmh or slower roads, less with likely traffic. If I took the same trip in the winter, I might have needed one, for the longest day, maybe another one or two, if there was a stiff wind. Not needed with a 60kWh LEAF.

The fraction of charging that is QC is likely to be smaller in the future with larger batteries. Two hours is a long time to sit in a car.

EV charging is not a disaster for utilities, but rather an opportunity. To quote the fine article:

Intelligently steering charging behavior to create value

Centrally coordinated, intelligent steering of EV-charging behavior could create value in several ways. First, it could allow even more effective peak shaving and thus greatly reduce the grid investments discussed. Second, it could allow a reshaping of the load curve beyond peak shaving to optimize generation cost (shifting demand from peak to base-load generation). And, revving charging up at times of excess solar and wind generation or throttling it down at moments of low renewables production could help to integrate a larger share of renewable power production. Finally, by providing demand-response services, smart charging could offer valuable system-balancing (frequency-response) services.

WetEV#49Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)2014 Leaf SL Red

WetEV wrote:Nice sneer in your tone. And good attempt to derail the subject.

Actually directly on point,

So how does a subsidy for purchase change the impact of electric vehicles on global energy systems? Do explain.

It affects the rate at which PEVs will increase, since subsidies are inevitably limited in any given time frame. Explosive growth will happen when subsidies are no longer needed for PEVs or their charging infrastructure, i.e. there's a normal (profitable) business case to be made.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote: and the major cause of the slow pace in making PEVs mainstream. Of course, if you're a country like China, you can just tell people to sit down, shut up and let the government alone decide how to spend money.

Off topic, but I'll reply. The second part of Tesla's Secret Master Plan worked. The Model S has been and is now, and will likely be produced for a profit, at least until a better and/or cheaper alternatives that can be produced for a profit is in production. The subsidies were not, are not and and will not be a major factor in the purchase of a $135k car. Less than 10% of the price. The loan that prevented Tesla's startup of Model S production near death experience from becoming a corporate death is probably the only government action that might have mattered. And that was paid back years ago.

The other automakers would like to eat lunch in the large luxury sedan market some time soon. So expect similar cars to be produced, and the high end car market to become mostly electric cars. The subsidies don't matter much to this market.

Oh, I agree, I've long said that the Model S/X and similar high-end BEVs (i-Pace/e-tron Quattro/Taycan etc.) will be able to succeed without subsidies, because their customers don't need them.

WetEV wrote:The upscale market is next. There is a huge demand for an electric with reasonable range, better performance than gas and priced $40k to $60k. BMW could have owned this market in electrics, if the i3 wasn't so weird. A larger car with a larger battery and no REX. BMW, Audi, and/or the rest of the usual suspects might still own this market. GM has a potential start with the Bolt, a Buick or Caddy version with RWD or AWD might do very well.

And we're in general agreement here as well, although I think the i3 BEV's problem is simply a much too high price for what you get; the REx's extra $3k to double the range and utility was an easy choice for most customers, although BMW then screwed many U.S. buyers when they crippled the REx and forced them to code the cars to restore their full capability.

WetEV wrote:So what is the path to the mainstream? Growth is going to be constrained by production of batteries to around 20% to 30% a year. Price of a electric car will fall as battery production costs continue to fall. Would you expect the limited supply to go first to the low cost cars for the low rent no garage crowd or to the upscale market?

Obviously,t he high end, and as I've pointed out before, if I didn't think time was pressing we could afford to wait for things to play out naturally.

WetEV wrote:Without subsidies, the above would have been slower, seems like to me at minimum. But why do you seem to assume the reverse?

Because any transportation mode is dependent on both the vehicles and their infrastructure, and as long as the infrastructure isn't profitable and has to be subsidized, growth will be limited far more than would otherwise be the case. ICEs and gas stations grew rapidly because they were both profitable, but I still don't know of any public for-profit charging company (which supplies the electricity) that isn't dependent on subsidies to stay afloat. Until that changes, resource constraints are pretty much irrelevant to mass adoption.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:

WetEV wrote:The utility company charges less for some electrons, and more for others. The electrons that can be delivered when there is excess capacity are a lot cheaper to provide. You want cheaper electrons? Get a EVSE that can be delayed by the utility until the utility has excess capacity. The utility company might even help you buy it, as it will reduce their cost to provide electric power.

This isn't a bribe. Requires no government funds. Not time consuming to do.

Having someone else help you pay for something that you wouldn't buy on your own isn't a bribe? Where is the utility getting the money to pay for this - other ratepayers, by any chance, or perhaps the government will give them a tax break to do so.

Or from the reduced costs allowed by the ability to defer demand...

Not every electron has the same cost. The most expensive electrons are at peak hour. By moving demand out of peak hour, the utility doesn't have to spend $1 per kWh to run some aging, inefficient peaking power plant. They can easily scrap that old junk, defer demand until they are delivering $0.03 per kWh from a 70% efficient natural gas combined cycle plant. And charge you a discounted $0.09 per kWh and make more money. By reducing capital costs, the utility can afford to spend a fraction of that reduction on a subsidy for an EVSE they can delay.

We're all in favor of load shifting and peak shaving, and that will help. But this assumes the utilities are able to bear the CapEx of all the new plants while scrapping the older ones before their time, and they're already hurting. Add to that intermittent renewables and the need for storage and costs go up even more. How it all will play out is anyone's guess.

WetEV wrote:[

GRA wrote:inevitably the need to use OPM will slow the rate of installation.

So how does a subsidy for purchase change the impact of electric vehicles on global energy systems? Do explain.

It affects the rate at which PEVs will increase, since subsidies are inevitably limited in any given time frame. Explosive growth will happen when subsidies are no longer needed for PEVs or their charging infrastructure, i.e. there's a normal (profitable) business case to be made.

So what? PEVs are going to increase with or without subsidies. Earlier start with subsidies, but still increase at much the same rate. You failed to answer the question. What is the real difference?

Explosive growth isn't going to happen in any case, as battery manufacturing and other parts of the supply chains needed to produce electric cars are unlikely to grow much faster than 20% to 30% a year. Even if demand for electric cars explodes, there are real limits in how fast production can be increased. Setting the bar at explosive growth is concern trolling, at best. Although 30% a year is fairly explosive.

Why are you concern trolling?

GRA wrote:Oh, I agree, I've long said that the Model S/X and similar high-end BEVs (i-Pace/e-tron Quattro/Taycan etc.) will be able to succeed without subsidies, because their customers don't need them.

No. High end BEVs have been, are and will be able to succeed without subsidies, as they are better cars at the same or lower price. Unlike hydrogen cars. And makers of high end BEVs will provide public charging, if that is what is needed to sell a $140k BEV.

GRA wrote:

WetEV wrote:So what is the path to the mainstream? Growth is going to be constrained by production of batteries to around 20% to 30% a year. Price of a electric car will fall as battery production costs continue to fall. Would you expect the limited supply to go first to the low cost cars for the low rent no garage crowd or to the upscale market?

Obviously,t he high end, and as I've pointed out before, if I didn't think time was pressing we could afford to wait for things to play out naturally.

We have only a few options other than to wait for things to play out. We can slightly speed up the adoption process with subsidies. But real transitions in large scale technology are both expensive and time consuming.

GRA wrote:

WetEV wrote:Without subsidies, the above would have been slower, seems like to me at minimum. But why do you seem to assume the reverse?

Because any transportation mode is dependent on both the vehicles and their infrastructure, and as long as the infrastructure isn't profitable and has to be subsidized, growth will be limited far more than would otherwise be the case.

Current public charging infrastructure isn't profitable and has been subsidized to get as extensive as it is. Yet that was to enable the earlier start of the ramp of electric vehicles. With most charging at home or work, perhaps the future might be allow public changing prices increase to match costs. After all, DCQC is a tiny fraction of total charging now, and might be even smaller in the future as battery costs continue to fall and battery sizes continue to rise. So what if the cost is 5 times that of home costs, or competitive with hydrogen. I only pay that when I take a trip longer than I can without charging, perhaps 3% of the time. Once per month. The cost of operation of a station will decline as utilization improves. Queuing theory says that multiple QCs at the same location should improve utilization more. Larger batteries mean fewer and larger locations needed, continued growth in EVs on the road mean higher utilization, cost should drop with time. Will never be as cheap as home charging.

ICEs and gas stations grew rapidly because they were both profitable, but I still don't know of any public for-profit charging company (which supplies the electricity) that isn't dependent on subsidies to stay afloat. Until that changes, resource constraints are pretty much irrelevant to mass adoption.

Let me point out just how damning that is for hydrogen. Renewable hydrogen will always be far more expensive (3x) than electric power. How can it ever be profitable, if electric car charging isn't profitable.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:Having someone else help you pay for something that you wouldn't buy on your own isn't a bribe? Where is the utility getting the money to pay for this - other ratepayers, by any chance, or perhaps the government will give them a tax break to do so.

Or from the reduced costs allowed by the ability to defer demand...

Not every electron has the same cost. The most expensive electrons are at peak hour. By moving demand out of peak hour, the utility doesn't have to spend $1 per kWh to run some aging, inefficient peaking power plant. They can easily scrap that old junk, defer demand until they are delivering $0.03 per kWh from a 70% efficient natural gas combined cycle plant. And charge you a discounted $0.09 per kWh and make more money. By reducing capital costs, the utility can afford to spend a fraction of that reduction on a subsidy for an EVSE they can delay.

We're all in favor of load shifting and peak shaving, and that will help. But this assumes the utilities are able to bear the CapEx of all the new plants while scrapping the older ones before their time, and they're already hurting. Add to that intermittent renewables and the need for storage and costs go up even more. How it all will play out is anyone's guess.[/quote]

Coal plants are closing, as they are too expensive to operate. Solar has already closed many peaking plants, as peak power demand for AC used to be while the Sun was shining. The old stuff will go away. Exactly how fast might be a guess, but the old stuff isn't going to be replace with more old stuff.

WetEV wrote:[

GRA wrote:inevitably the need to use OPM will slow the rate of installation.

Backwards. Subsidies mean that deployment can start before there is a profitable business. Faster deployment.

The first unsubsidized solar farm went on line last year. Solar has been growing rapidly because of subsidies. Costs have been decreasing because of volume and volume is because of subsidies. Once the cost is low enough, the subsidies can end and growth will continue.

WetEV#49Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)2014 Leaf SL Red

WetEV wrote:So how does a subsidy for purchase change the impact of electric vehicles on global energy systems? Do explain.

It affects the rate at which PEVs will increase, since subsidies are inevitably limited in any given time frame. Explosive growth will happen when subsidies are no longer needed for PEVs or their charging infrastructure, i.e. there's a normal (profitable) business case to be made.

So what? PEVs are going to increase with or without subsidies. Earlier start with subsidies, but still increase at much the same rate. You failed to answer the question. What is the real difference?

Explosive growth isn't going to happen in any case, as battery manufacturing and other parts of the supply chains needed to produce electric cars are unlikely to grow much faster than 20% to 30% a year. Even if demand for electric cars explodes, there are real limits in how fast production can be increased. Setting the bar at explosive growth is concern trolling, at best. Although 30% a year is fairly explosive.

Why are you concern trolling?

It's not trolling, it's concern that the rate of transition to non-fossil-fuels isn't sufficient.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:Oh, I agree, I've long said that the Model S/X and similar high-end BEVs (i-Pace/e-tron Quattro/Taycan etc.) will be able to succeed without subsidies, because their customers don't need them.

No. High end BEVs have been, are and will be able to succeed without subsidies, as they are better cars at the same or lower price. Unlike hydrogen cars. And makers of high end BEVs will provide public charging, if that is what is needed to sell a $140k BEV.

High end BEVs currently have some features that are better and some worse, depending on an individual's priorities. They aren't yet a full replacement for ICEs.

BTW, for those who think that the convenience of at-home charging is an overwhelming advantage for PEVs, there are now companies that are eliminating that issue for ICEs and there's no reason that the same model can't be used for FCEVs, although my personal opinion is that anyone who's so time-poor but cash-rich needs to re-think their priorities:

The latest way busy people are saving time: Hiring someone else to fill up their car with gas

. . . To ensure that her weeks run smoothly, Block, an avid planner, has turned to technology, using AmazonFresh and Google Express to stock her fridge and order products ranging from toilet paper to electronics. She can’t remember the last time she pushed a shopping cart through a store.

Until a few months ago, there remained a single irritating chore that Block couldn’t seem to avoid: filling her car up with gas.

Her solution: a Silicon Valley start-up that functions like a mobile gas station, using “field technicians” to fill up vehicles when they’re not being driven. The company, known as Yoshi, is part of a crop of gas-delivery start-ups billing themselves as “Uber for gasoline.” Yoshi members pay a $20 monthly subscription fee, plus the cost of gas, a deal that Block — who considers gas stations dirty and inconvenient — said she couldn’t resist. . . .

For many drivers, a trip to the gas station is a forgettable inconvenience that occurs once or twice a week. But Yoshi is banking on the idea that there are millions of people like Block all over the country: urban professionals whose demanding schedules and disposable income make them ideal candidates for outsourcing a chore that has been a feature of car ownership since the inception of the automobile.

The company seeks to be more than a concierge service for the affluent, and it arrives at a time when companies such as Uber, Amazon.com, Whole Foods (now owned by Amazon) and Netflix are trying to capitalize on the appeal of convenience. (Amazon chief executive Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

In the past 12 months, the company has spread from three cities nationwide to 16, including Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston and Los Angeles . . . They’ve recently added the Washington D.C. region to that list. . . .

At a time when Silicon Valley is rushing to replace gas-powered engines with electric motors and batteries, selling combustible fuel might appear to be a foolish way to launch a career. But the 31-year-old Frist — who founded the company with two partners in 2015 — said his team looked for industries that remained largely untouched by innovation. The outdated nature of the gas station, he said, was part of the business’s allure. . . .

As ride-hailing and ride-sharing make owning a car useless for some, Weaver said, there is a push within the auto industry to remove the “pain points” from the car-ownership experience. . . .

To no one's surprise, this type of thing apparently started in Silicon Valley.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:Obviously, the high end, and as I've pointed out before, if I didn't think time was pressing we could afford to wait for things to play out naturally.

We have only a few options other than to wait for things to play out. We can slightly speed up the adoption process with subsidies. But real transitions in large scale technology are both expensive and time consuming.

Which I've agreed with, and added that it's a matter of reducing the transition time as much as possible, by giving people many non-fossil-fueled options rather than just one, instead of foreclosing that option for all the people who don't have convenient home charging, a majority of the world's urban drivers.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:Because any transportation mode is dependent on both the vehicles and their infrastructure, and as long as the infrastructure isn't profitable and has to be subsidized, growth will be limited far more than would otherwise be the case.

Current public charging infrastructure isn't profitable and has been subsidized to get as extensive as it is. Yet that was to enable the earlier start of the ramp of electric vehicles. With most charging at home or work, perhaps the future might be allow public changing prices increase to match costs. After all, DCQC is a tiny fraction of total charging now, and might be even smaller in the future as battery costs continue to fall and battery sizes continue to rise. So what if the cost is 5 times that of home costs, or competitive with hydrogen. I only pay that when I take a trip longer than I can without charging, perhaps 3% of the time. Once per month. The cost of operation of a station will decline as utilization improves. Queuing theory says that multiple QCs at the same location should improve utilization more. Larger batteries mean fewer and larger locations needed, continued growth in EVs on the road mean higher utilization, cost should drop with time. Will never be as cheap as home charging.

At the moment, even public L2 charging is more expensive than gas in many places, including the only (reasonably) convenient public charging I would have access to. Unless that can be made profitable at prices which are less expensive than gas, I don't see how we can convince people to switch.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:ICEs and gas stations grew rapidly because they were both profitable, but I still don't know of any public for-profit charging company (which supplies the electricity) that isn't dependent on subsidies to stay afloat. Until that changes, resource constraints are pretty much irrelevant to mass adoption.

Let me point out just how damning that is for hydrogen. Renewable hydrogen will always be far more expensive (3x) than electric power. How can it ever be profitable, if electric car charging isn't profitable.

As I see it, the difference is that electricity is a mature tech, and I don't see any areas where major cost reductions are possible (EVSEs will decrease in price along with the rest of electronics). Renewable H2, OTOH, is at a much earlier stage of development, with refinements possible in production, transport and storage, and still subject to major gains from economies of scale. Naturally, this doesn't guarantee prices will drop to the point that it can be a commercial success, and you rightly say that it won't be as inexpensive as (home) electricity, but I don't believe it has to be, only competitive with gas.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:We're all in favor of load shifting and peak shaving, and that will help. But this assumes the utilities are able to bear the CapEx of all the new plants while scrapping the older ones before their time, and they're already hurting. Add to that intermittent renewables and the need for storage and costs go up even more. How it all will play out is anyone's guess.

Coal plants are closing, as they are too expensive to operate. Solar has already closed many peaking plants, as peak power demand for AC used to be while the Sun was shining. The old stuff will go away. Exactly how fast might be a guess, but the old stuff isn't going to be replace with more old stuff.

Sure, in the U.S. OTOH, China is replacing old coal plants with new (and more efficient) ones on a large scale; India's on the fence a bit, but they've just built a whole generation of coal plants and can't afford to toss them, especially as something like 300 million indians still dont' have electricity.

Backwards. Subsidies mean that deployment can start before there is a profitable business. Faster deployment.

The first unsubsidized solar farm went on line last year. Solar has been growing rapidly because of subsidies. Costs have been decreasing because of volume and volume is because of subsidies. Once the cost is low enough, the subsidies can end and growth will continue.

Sure, subsidies boost deployment early on - I said as much for renewables. The question is how quickly can you shift to profitability, and right now I don't see any likely path to that for public charging, with a possible exception if we let the utilities provide it directly. Which they should IMO, just a they do for home charging.

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

It's not trolling, it's concern that the rate of transition to non-fossil-fuels isn't sufficient.

Rate of transition isn't likely to be much higher, for a long list of reasons. Insisting on non-realistic growth is Trolling.

The problem is that there is a huge investment needed to make these sorts of changes, and you can't just do it all at once. People need training, technology needs development, small scale trials, larger scale trials, limited production, .... Bottom line is on the order of 50 years is needed.

GRA wrote:

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:Oh, I agree, I've long said that the Model S/X and similar high-end BEVs (i-Pace/e-tron Quattro/Taycan etc.) will be able to succeed without subsidies, because their customers don't need them.

No. High end BEVs have been, are and will be able to succeed without subsidies, as they are better cars at the same or lower price. Unlike hydrogen cars. And makers of high end BEVs will provide public charging, if that is what is needed to sell a $140k BEV.

High end BEVs currently have some features that are better and some worse, depending on an individual's priorities. They aren't yet a full replacement for ICEs.

Once again, you are Trolling. ICEs are still not yet a full replacement for horses. Is there an ICE as intelligent as a horse yet?

WetEV#49Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)2014 Leaf SL Red

It's not trolling, it's concern that the rate of transition to non-fossil-fuels isn't sufficient.

Rate of transition isn't likely to be much higher, for a long list of reasons. Insisting on non-realistic growth is Trolling.

The problem is that there is a huge investment needed to make these sorts of changes, and you can't just do it all at once. People need training, technology needs development, small scale trials, larger scale trials, limited production, .... Bottom line is on the order of 50 years is needed.

The situation is different this time. 60-100 years has been typical of previous energy transitions. I'm concerned that we can't take that long with this one, and unlike previous energy transitions, this one isn't motivated primarily by finding a cheaper, more energy-dense and convenient fuel, so we have the option of speeding the process up if we chose. I'm worried that we may need to see significant changes by 2030, and reach 50% non-fossil fuels by 2040 or 2045 at the latest, in other words, the curve needs to be front-loaded as much as possible.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:

WetEV wrote:No. High end BEVs have been, are and will be able to succeed without subsidies, as they are better cars at the same or lower price. Unlike hydrogen cars. And makers of high end BEVs will provide public charging, if that is what is needed to sell a $140k BEV.

High end BEVs currently have some features that are better and some worse, depending on an individual's priorities. They aren't yet a full replacement for ICEs.

Once again, you are Trolling. ICEs are still not yet a full replacement for horses. Is there an ICE as intelligent as a horse yet?

Oh come on, that argument's as ridiculous now as the first time you advanced it. The motive power for virtually all of the world's commercial and most of its private transport are fossil-fueled ICEs. Or are you claiming that car owners will look at ICEs, BEVs and horses and opt for horses? Don 't be absurd. There are 275 million motor vehicles in this country and a few million horses, most of which are used for recreation. That animals are still used for work (mainly in the less developed world) is true, but that's due to lack of money (or lack of roads), not affection for the animals.

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA wrote:The situation is different this time. 60-100 years has been typical of previous energy transitions. I'm concerned that we can't take that long with this one, and unlike previous energy transitions, this one isn't motivated primarily by finding a cheaper, more energy-dense and convenient fuel, so we have the option of speeding the process up if we chose. I'm worried that we may need to see significant changes by 2030, and reach 50% non-fossil fuels by 2040 or 2045 at the latest, in other words, the curve needs to be front-loaded as much as possible.

We might do this transition twice as fast. Perhaps 30-50 years. But the options of speeding up are not as easy as you assume.

GRA wrote:

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:High end BEVs currently have some features that are better and some worse, depending on an individual's priorities. They aren't yet a full replacement for ICEs.

Once again, you are Trolling. ICEs are still not yet a full replacement for horses. Is there an ICE as intelligent as a horse yet?

Oh come on, that argument's as ridiculous now as the first time you advanced it.

Exactly.

If the cost of DCQC during the day is higher or slower than that of gasoline AND the average usage of DCQC is less than 1% of all charging, it may not matter in the slightest that DCQC will be more expensive or slower than pumping smelly "dead dinosaurs". A "full replacement" isn't what is needed. Lower "total cost" is more important, and remember that some dollars or minutes are counted different than others.

When most of the world's commercial and private transport is BEV, you can still claim that a BEV isn't a "full replacement" for an ICE. Or that a BEV isn't a full replacement for a horse, for that matter. Just EXACTLY as ridiculous.

WetEV#49Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)2014 Leaf SL Red

GRA wrote:The situation is different this time. 60-100 years has been typical of previous energy transitions. I'm concerned that we can't take that long with this one, and unlike previous energy transitions, this one isn't motivated primarily by finding a cheaper, more energy-dense and convenient fuel, so we have the option of speeding the process up if we chose. I'm worried that we may need to see significant changes by 2030, and reach 50% non-fossil fuels by 2040 or 2045 at the latest, in other words, the curve needs to be front-loaded as much as possible.

We might do this transition twice as fast. Perhaps 30-50 years. But the options of speeding up are not as easy as you assume.

I've never assumed they were easy (cf. "Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects" by Vaclav Smil; ; I think his "Energy Transitions: Global and National Perspectives, 2nd Edition" is a retitled, updated version, but I haven't read that it yet) - I said I think they're necessary.

WetEV wrote:

GRA wrote:

WetEV wrote:Once again, you are Trolling. ICEs are still not yet a full replacement for horses. Is there an ICE as intelligent as a horse yet?

Oh come on, that argument's as ridiculous now as the first time you advanced it.

Exactly.

If the cost of DCQC during the day is higher or slower than that of gasoline AND the average usage of DCQC is less than 1% of all charging, it may not matter in the slightest that DCQC will be more expensive or slower than pumping smelly "dead dinosaurs". A "full replacement" isn't what is needed. Lower "total cost" is more important, and remember that some dollars or minutes are counted different than others.

When most of the world's commercial and private transport is BEV, you can still claim that a BEV isn't a "full replacement" for an ICE. Or that a BEV isn't a full replacement for a horse, for that matter. Just EXACTLY as ridiculous.

No, if most of the world has voluntarily moved to BEVs from ICEs, it will be because the general public believes they are an adequate and affordable replacement for them (or else the situation will be so dire that there's simply no option).

Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.Copper shot, not Silver bullets.